Palestine's UN status to be decided by member states: Ban

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 15 (Xinhua) -- UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said here Thursday that the fate of Palestinian aspirations for statehood or non-member observer statehood is in the hands of member states.

"The UN Charter is quite clear that the recognition of a State and membership in the United Nations are issues for Member States to decide and other UN intergovernmental bodies," Ban said.
His statements came during a press conference where he addressed issues that have been prominent in the global organization's work of late.

At the forefront of the list of issues is the question of whether or not Palestine, which is currently only an "observer" at the UN, will receive an elevated status within the organization by aiming to get full-fledged statehood through the Security Council or by seeking the lesser status of non-member observer state via a General Assembly vote.

Although Palestine has yet to announce which route it will take, the U.S., which has full veto power in the Security Council, has hinted it will use this power to prevent a Palestinian statehood measure from passing.

"On the admission of a state into the United Nations, this is an issue to be decided by member states in accordance with the Charter provision: first, they should go to the Security Council and get the recommendation by the Security Council, and that should be decided by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, " said Ban.

If Palestine submits the bid for statehood, it would do so on Sept. 23, the same day that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is slated to address the General Assembly at its plenary session here.

The secretary-general stated that his role in the process of achieving UN statehood for Palestine remains limited to evaluating "technical" questions.

"When I receive an application from a state for admission into the United Nations, I review all these technical issues - whether this application is in proper form and stating that they are committed to implementing all the Charter provisions," he said. " Then, I refer it to the Security Council."
Ban said that he has not yet received any application for Palestinian statehood.

Riyad Mansour, the permanent observer of Palestine spoke to reporters here Thursday, confirming that Palestinian leaders have yet to announce a final decision on which of the two possible approaches they will choose for boosting Palestine's status at the UN.

"The decision has not been finalized but once it is finalized, we will deal with the technicalities and the rules of procedures of how we can implement it and we will try to implement it as soon as possible," he said.

Abbas has been engaged in talks with leaders from the Arab League, as well as the European Union (EU) on the topic of Palestine's UN aspirations.

"After all of these discussions are finalized, we will decide, President Abbas will decide, and we will follow while we are pursing our objective of acquiring what belongs to us -- to become a full member of the United Nations," said Mansour.

During his press conference, Ban also commented on the ongoing deadlock in negotiations between Israel and Palestine for a two- state solution in the region.

"I am profoundly troubled by the lack of progress in the peace negotiations," said Ban. "It is vital that they resume."

Direct talks between Israel and Palestine stalled in October 2010, when Israel declined to renew a moratorium on its settlement building.

Ban said that time is not on the parties' side in finding a solution to their decades-long disagreements.
"Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieving a two- state solution is long overdue," he said. "Time is not our friend. "

The diplomatic Quartet for Middle East peace, consisting of the UN, the EU, the U.S., and Russia had set the deadline for negotiating a final settlement between Israel and Palestine for September 2011. Thus far, there has been no indication that direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine will resume.

"The two parties have been negotiating, the negotiations have been up and down," said Ban. "And it is really high time to resolve this issue, to realize a two-State solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace and security. That is the vision agreed upon by the two sides and supported by all the countries around the world. So, I am asking them to enter into a meaningful negotiation."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/16/c_131141228.htm

Editor: Mu Xuequan

Israel should be the first to recognise Palestine - Lebor

Israel is under siege. Last week, Egypt allowed the Israeli embassy in Cairo to be sacked. Turkey, once Israel's most important regional ally, has expelled the Israeli ambassador. Recep Erdogan, the Prime Minister, seems set on further confrontations, apparently promising to send Turkish warships to escort the next aid convoy to Gaza.

But these setbacks pale in comparison to the coming diplomatic tsunami.

The Palestinians have seized the diplomatic initiative and Israel is flailing hopelessly, trying to impose old patterns on a new paradigm. Despite the best efforts of the Israeli foreign ministry it seems certain that, later this month, the United Nations General Assembly will vote overwhelmingly to recognise an independent Palestine as the UN's 194th member state.

The move has ironic echoes of Resolution 181 in November 1947, when the UN voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The vote will have to be ratified by the Security Council. The United States, one of the permanent five members with veto powers, has said it will not support the statehood bid. For the moment at least, the quasi-statelet of Palestine will continue in its present limbo; not yet a proper country but much more than an occupied territory.

The prospect of Palestinian recognition has provoked near-panic in Jerusalem. For even if the USA uses its veto, recognition will be a massive moral, diplomatic and political victory for the Palestinians. As Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, argued in the New York Times, "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice."
Israel will have to explain why it operates an apartheid-like system of separate roads and water supplies for its own citizens that is off-limits to the indigenous population. Israel's tortuous legal arguments that attempt to justify the prevention of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state through the appropriation of Palestinian land will collapse. The momentum behind the growing international boycott movement will be given a veneer of legitimacy by any General Assembly vote to recognise Palestine.

Palestinian expectations will have to be met before long

Even if the USA does use its veto, President Obama and his officials have made no secret of their exasperation and irritation with Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Robert Gates, the former US secretary of defence, told Obama that Netanyahu was not only "ungrateful" for American support but was endangering Israel by refusing to deal with its growing diplomatic isolation and the demographic challenges of the West Bank.

Yet there is a way for Israel to change the diplomatic dynamic, seize the initiative and dictate the agenda instead of simply reacting to events. It should not only vote in favour of recognising Palestine; it should be the first country to do so, and welcome its neighbour to the community of nations.
Such a move would confound all its critics and, by turning accepted wisdom on its head, would break the diplomatic logjam.

Nor would recognising Palestine be as outlandish as it may sound. Israeli and Palestinian politicians and officials already meet regularly at tables decorated with both nations' flags. Israeli and Palestinian security forces co-operate successfully on tracking extremists and preventing terrorist attacks.

The West Bank has been comparatively calm and stable for the last few years. The Palestinian economy's rapid growth is partly founded on its growing trade relations with Israel. An increasing number of Israeli businessmen and women are keen to boost economic links, a desire shared by the nascent Palestinian middle class. Even the Islamist Hamas regime in Gaza depends on Israel for much of its electricity, fuel and food supplies.

Some argue that the Palestinian push for statehood at the UN will create "unrealistic expectations", which will further destabilise the region, as legions of protestors storm Israeli checkpoints and settlements in Palestine's own version of the Arab spring. Yet the Palestinians' expectations of statehood, which are entirely legitimate, will have to be met sooner rather than later. The founding of a Palestinian state will not happen according to a timetable written in Jerusalem, but in Ramallah, which is already Palestine's de facto capital.

The Palestinians have already cleverly appropriated the Zionist action plan, quietly building up their institutions and economy, garnering international support to be declared at the United Nations.
Now is the moment for Israel to change course, welcome a newly independent state of Palestine with which it can live in peace and stability, and remember the words of Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism: "If you will it, it is no dream."
Adam LeBor is the author of "City of Oranges: Arabs and Jews in Jaffa"
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/54724/israel-should-be-first-recognise-palestine

Yes to Palestine - Reza Aslan

Yes to Palestine

The U.S. should not veto or vote against efforts to have the U.N. recognize a Palestinian state.

A masked Palestinian man waves his national flag during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Bilin Sept. 9. On the same day, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the Palestinian people are "long overdue" in their quest for an independent state. (Oliver Weiken / EPA)

• Keep the peace between Israel and Egypt

• Israel protests show nation's beating heart
• Israel: 'Delegitimization' is just a distraction
• Israel's Gaza sea blockade is an act of self-defense
• Getting on board with peace in Israel
• Palestinian statehood: Individual nations, not the U.N., will have the final say
• See more stories »
• X

Forget the two-state solution

By Reza Aslan

September 15, 2011

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the

U.N.Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.

The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being.

"President Obama has utterly failed to advance the Middle East peace process.Obama came into office vowing a more active and evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet beyond a few lofty speeches about Palestinian suffering, he has offered no substantive policy shifts or specific proposals for moving negotiations forward. Obama's attempt to temporarily stop Israel from building settlements in the occupied territories backfired when he caved in to Israeli intransigence. The administration then had the nerve to veto a nonbinding U.N. resolution condemning the very settlements Obama himself had condemned. The president's barely newsworthy suggestion that negotiations for a two-state solution be based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (which, as the basis for the Oslo accords, has been the principle advanced, if not publicly announced, by every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter) was ridiculed by the Israeli prime minister, and in the Capitol building, no less. The president's kowtowing to Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing has made the U.S. look weak on the global stage. If for no other reason than to prove to the world that the U.S. is not Israel's lap dog, the president should refrain from vetoing a Palestinian state.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not political suicide to defy the will of Israel.There is no doubt that American public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But polls show that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should not favor one side over the other in the conflict. Among thoughtful leaders in the media, military and foreign affairs, there has been a consensus that our policy toward Israel is severely damaging America's interests and image around the world. According to a 2008 J Street poll, 78% of American Jews said they supported a two-state solution and 81% wanted the U.S. to pressure both sides to end the conflict.Of course, the Republicans will try to paint Obama and the Democrats as "anti-Israel" if the president fails to veto the U.N. vote. But this has been a consistent strategy on the part of the GOP for years, and it has always failed. In any case, the same J Street poll found that only 8% of Jews cite Israel as an issue in deciding whom to vote for for president.

Palestinians are doing almost exactly what Israelis did 60 years ago.Israel maintains that the Palestinians cannot declare statehood and seal it through the U.N. Yet the Palestinians are merely following the trail blazed by Israel six decades ago. In 1948, after the U.N. voted for the partition of Palestine, debate among the world powers about how to divide the land dragged on and violence between Jews and Arabs grew worse. The Jewish Agency simply preempted negotiations and unilaterally declared the state of Israel; the United States immediately recognized it, and the U.N. accepted Israeli sovereignty the following year.The Palestinian Authority has come to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently came to in 1948: Negotiations will not lead to an independent state; the only way forward is unilateral action. By rejecting that strategy outright, Israel is not only being hypocritical; it is invalidating its own existence as a state.There is one more reason to support the Palestinians' bid at the United Nations. It is the moral thing to do. During his first presidential campaign, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Now, he has the opportunity to live up to his own beliefs and promises, and to provide the Palestinian people with the same sense of dignity that Harry Truman gave Israel 60 years ago.

Reza Aslan is the founder of AslanMedia.com and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam."

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Recognize Palestine, Rabbi Lerner

Why not a win/win for the U.S., Israel and Palestine? We at Tikkun and our Network of Spiritual Progressives have the way to achieve this. We need you to sign the petition plus send a letter to the White House about it (a real letter, not only an emai, to Tom Donilon, President Obama's National Security Advisor, White House, Washington, D.C. and to Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Dept, Washington, D.C. and to influential Obama advisor Michelle Obama a the White House). It's not too late to influence the outcome in a good way.

If you prefer to read this article on line, you can do so at www.tikkun.org in Rabbi Lerner's Editorials and Actions column. Or you can read it on HuffingtonPost.com.

Obama and UN: Recognize Palestine AND Re-affirm Israel's Right to Exist as a Jewish State by Rabbi MIchael Lerner, editor, Tikkun

American and Israeli diplomats acknowledge that they do not have the votes to prevent the General Assembly of the United Nations from recognizing Palestine and granting it some of the rights of member states. The U.S. can block full membership only by exercising its veto in the Security Council, an act likely to intensify hatred of the U.S. in many countries around the world.

A far wiser strategy is for the U.S. (even better, with Israel) to introduce a resolution to the Security Council providing full membership in the U.N. to Palestine while simultaneously reaffirming Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Both sides win. Israel will feel less isolated, and Palestinians will get full instead of the only partial and largely symbolic membership in the U.N. it could get from the General Assembly once the U.S. vetoes membership in a Security Council resolution.

The resolution should make clear that this recognition is contingent on both Palestine and Israel respecting the rights of all its citizens and offering them equal protection under the law, and not imposing any religious practices on any of its citizens. Calling Israel a Jewish state does not mean sanctioning existing forms of discrimination that currently exist there against Palestinians, or against its own secular majority which currently suffers from religious coercion by the Orthodox minority (which gets its way because it has enough votes in the Knesset for the major parties to need the religious groups in any coaliton government secular parties might hope to put together).

The primary concern that Palestinians have voiced about calling Israel a Jewish state is the fear that this would a. validate the right of Israel to continue to discriminate against its Arab citizens in housing, employment, education and allocations to Israel's municipalities, and b. close the door to the Palestinian "right of return."

The primary concern that the U.S. has voiced about supporting Palestinian membership is that doing so might end any inclination by Palestinians to engage in negotiations with Israel.

The resolution that the U.S. should introduce could deal with these concerns, using the following formulations:

We call upon both Israel and Palestine to give equal rights in protection, employment, voting, housing, education, health, and all other government-supported activities and programs to all their minority citizens.

We call upon Israel and Palestine to negotiate (in a spirit of open-heartedness, generosity and understanding that both sides' well-being is intrinsically tied to the well-being of the other side and the other side's perception that it is being dealt with respectfully and justly) a lasting peace, to affirm each other's right to exist, and, to make territorial swaps of equivalent territory and strategic and economic value -- based on the pre-1967 border of Israel, as part of creating borders agreed upon by both sides.

Once an agreement has been reached between Israel and Palestine, we call upon all other states in the region to recognize and create warm relationships with Israel and Palestine and to take necessary steps toward the creation of a Middle East common market.

Nothing in this resolution is meant to determine the detailed outcome of those negotiations or to take a stand beyond previous U.N. resolutions on how to best deal with the legitimate security needs of Israel or the best way to end the suffering of Palestinian refugees.

Israel was the first affirmative action state, recognized by the United Nations primarily out of a global recognition that the Jewish people had faced extraordinary persecution through much of the past two thousand years, culminating in the Holocaust. Its policy of giving a special right of return and special rights to immigrant housing is a legitimate response to the vulnerability the Jewish people continue to face in light of continuing hatred of Jews based on prejudicial views of who Jews are and what we stand for.

But that affirmative action should not extend to treating Palestinian citizens of Israel in discriminatory ways in any other respect except immigration. Israel can continue to privilege Jewish culture and history, while encouraging its citizens to also learn Arabic and supporting its Muslim and Christian minorities to celebrate their own holidays and teaching their cultures in Israeli schools, as well.

Similarly, the Palestinian state that is now emerging should be recognized as an affirmation action state, recognized by the United Nations before it has control over any territory of its own as a way to alleviate the special suffering of the Palestinian people. It should have a special right of return and special rights to immigrant housing for Palestinians living anywhere in the world in light of the suffering that Palestinian refugees have faced under occupation by Israel and in Arab countries which have often treated Palestinians in harsh and discriminatory ways.

Why not turn this moment into a victory for both the Israeli and Palestinian people, and one in which the U.S. emerges as a hero rather than a villain?

Please sign the petition to Recognize Palestine and Recognize Israel as a Jewish State: click here.

Please ask your friends, co-workers, colleagues, family members, and contacts (including everyone on Facebook or Tweets) to also sign it. They can simply put the following URL in their seach mechanism and they'll get there:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/525/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7064

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine and author of the forthcoming book, Embracing Israel/Palestine: A Strategy for Peace in the Middle East (Random House, November 2011).

The Lessons of Budrus

The Lessons of Budrus
Professon Alon Ben-Mier
September 12, 2011

I recently spoke at the NY United Nations Association following a screening of the documentary Budrus, named after a Palestinian village in the West Bank (WB). Although I carefully followed the events in that small village as they occurred in 2003-2004, when I previewed the documentary, I realized how little has changed since that time in Israeli-Palestinian relations. A village of 1,500 residents was determined to use peaceful protests to prevent the Israeli Defense Department from building a security fence that would separate the village from the rest of the WB.

Events that could have had tragic consequences ended in the villager's triumphant peaceful resistance that accommodated Israel's security requirements while restoring the villagers' way of life with dignity. Now, what lessons have Israelis and Palestinians learned from this compelling story of nonviolent resistance against occupation?

First, only peaceful resistance can improve the dynamic on the ground. This was proven over the past nearly three years when the Palestinian Authority in the WB determined that only by renouncing violence as a mean to achieve their national objective of statehood will the inevitability of peaceful coexistence finally set in.

The contrast between the WB and Gaza is extraordinarily stark. Whereas the WB has developed state infrastructure, with social and political institutions, shopping centers, and movie theaters while internal security maintains law and order with full cooperation with Israel, much of Gaza remains a waste land.

This is not because of the Israeli blockade, but primarily because Hamas refuses to renounce violence and still calls for Israel's destruction. This position forces Hamas to focus on security by acquiring offensive weapons against Israel instead of providing the people with economic opportunities and the building of the foundation of state in cooperation with its counterpart in the West Bank.
The second lesson from the Budrus experience is that Israel's legitimate security concerns can be mitigated by minor border adjustment through land swapping without displacing a single Palestinians and without uprooting hundreds of olive trees, which is one of the main sources of the villager's livelihood.

Contrary to Netanyahu's contention that the 1967 borders are not defensible, in the age of missiles and rockets one might ask what borders are indeed defensible? Is the Gaza's border defensible? Will acquiring swaths of land by Israel in Gaza makes any difference from security perspectives?

The truth is that only peace that meets the mutual requirements of both sides makes nearly any border peaceful and even a source of cooperation, trade and a host of other exchanges. Budrus has demonstrated that Israel remains as secure by building the fence along the 1967 line without infringement on Palestinian territory. Under conditions of sustainable peace the fence could eventually be removed altogether and allow for free movement of people and goods in both directions.

The Budrus story further suggests that extremism will serve neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian cause. Extremists on both sides can disrupt and delay the peace process, but will never be able to prevent peace from being realized because a majority on both sides yearns for peace. This was further emphasized by the fact, Hamas supporter, a father of seven children and a teacher who initially was skeptical about "peaceful" resistance. But once he realized that many Israelis were also against the occupation and came out in groves in support of the Palestinians in Budrus by joining them hand in hand, he too came to the conclusion that there is reason to believe that the conflict can be resolved without bloodshed.

Burdus highlights an important and often overlooked element in the process of peaceful resistance, namely the role of women. Unlike military and political processes which often exclude women and families, these parties can participate and support nonviolence resistance. Women were at the forefront of the protests in Budrus, which empowered them to take a stake in protecting their village. By protesting alongside men, both Israeli and Palestinian, the women of Budrus showed that this conflict transcends cultural boundaries to unify and bolster their community and home.

The story of Budrus also uncovered mutual misperception of Israelis and Palestinians while revealing the basic humanity and the sheer desire to live in peace. The Palestinians realized that not all Israelis are gun wielding, ready to kill any Palestinian, as they have been portrayed by Palestinian extremists and the media.

In turn, the Israelis who joined the Palestinians' protest against the fence realized that these villagers simply want to live a peaceful life. They harbor no ill feelings toward the Israelis and accept Israel as a neighbor with whom they want to cooperate as long as Israel does not infringe on their autonomy.

The inescapable conclusion of this poignant story is that Israeli-Palestinian coexistence is not one of many choices, but the only choice. Israelis and Palestinians must now choose between continuing strife, bloodshed and poison one generation after another, or live in peace and prosperity together.

Unilateral action by either side will go nowhere. Neither continued occupation nor the quest to attain UN recognition of a Palestinian state will serve either side national interest. The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rests on good-faith negotiations provided that both sides accept what the villagers of Budrus and the Israelis who came to support them have accepted all along: Live and let live.

Israeli and Palestinian Self Entrapment

Israeli and Palestinian Self Entrapment  
September 15, 2011
Professon Alon Ben-Mier

The United States should preempt the Palestinian bid for UN membership by introducing its own resolution at United Nations Security Council

American, Israeli and Palestinian officials today are frantically grappling with the various pros and cons concerning the Palestinian Authority's plans to seek recognition from the United Nations next week. Regardless of the merit or wisdom behind such a move, the Palestinians seem determined to proceed with their plans unless Israel agrees to negotiate in earnest while freezing settlement construction during the negotiations-an unlikely option at this late juncture. Unfortunately, however, neither side has been willing or able to agree to rules of engagement to support their professed desire to conclude a peace agreement resulting in a two-state solution.

The failure to reengage in negotiations before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) convenes over the next two weeks or to modify any resolution passed by the UN to produce positive momentum will usher in a period of instability with unpredictable consequences for all parties: the United States, Israel and the Palestinians.

First, the clear consequences of the UN plan are reduced influence of the United States in the Middle East. Long believed to be the only credible mediator of the Arab-Israeli dispute, the internationalization of the conflict serves as a de facto vote of no confidence in the Obama administration's ability to bring the parties back to the negotiating table with a chance to succeed in reaching an equitable peace agreement.

Second, Israel would face an unprecedented wave of continued delegitimization efforts. An increasing number of states, certainly more than two third of the international community, will join in solidarity with the Palestinians. Furthermore, the continued decline of US influence in the Arab-Israeli arena is likely to increase tensions between Washington and Jerusalem.

Finally, the test for the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be managing the strategy for the post-UNGA environment to meet the elevated expectations that have come with the international push to recognize Palestine as a UN member state. All the while, the PA is threatened by its rival, Hamas, which opposes Abbas' bid to go to the UN because it would affirm Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders. As a result, Hamas may return to violence against Israel which could have horrific consequences for the Palestinian people.

Although both Israel and the Palestinians pretend to be weary of the unending conflict, they nevertheless have been pursuing counterproductive policies, undermining the very premise on which a lasting peace can be erected. If Netanyahu truly sought a two-state solution and to prevent the Palestinians from going to the UN, he could have agreed to starting negotiations with borders and even accepted a temporary freeze on settlement construction to give Mahmoud Abbas a face-saving way out. The Palestinians, on the other hand, could have intimated to the Americans that they were willing to stop promoting old narratives, particularly about the return of Palestinian refugees, and agreed to a significant land swap thereby encouraging the Israelis to take them seriously.

Meanwhile, the August 2011 meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo failed to play any constructive role and left it to Palestinian devices to decide on the next course of action. In so doing, Arab leadership too has signaled inaptitude rather than trying to genuinely advance the cause of peace.

In the past, I have opposed the Palestinian move to unilaterally seek UN recognition of their state, but at this late hour the only way to avoid what will be an unprecedented period of uncertainty is for the United States and the European Union to lead the way. They can still find an alternative before the UNGA convenes that can help advance the peace process and avoid a potential catastrophe.

Rather than simply vetoing the proposed Palestinian resolution, the Obama administration should introduce a resolution that could garner the support of the UN Security Council (UNSC) with provisions that will inevitably have to be accepted by both Israel and the Palestinians. The US should join leading EU members like France, Britain and Germany who have and would certainly still consider proposing four parameters that any future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will have to accomplish: 1) the future border to be established based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swap, 2) expanded security arrangements throughout the West Bank that will satisfy Israel's strict national security requirements, 3) a shared capital in Jerusalem by institutionalizing what is on the ground without uprooting any Israeli or Palestinian residents and, 4) a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, which must be achieved through compensation and or resettlements in their homeland -the West Bank and Gaza.

Instead of offering a detailed framework for an agreement that would be rejected by each side, the above terms provide a general framework with regard to the need to establish a two-state solution and address the core final status issues, starting with borders and security as proposed by President Obama. In doing so, the resolution should be framed as a continuation of the efforts the UNSC has made on this issue since the end of the 1967 Six Day War. The resolution could serve to reaffirm UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, which Israel and the Arab states have accepted, with the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the 1993 Oslo accords--all of which have endorsed the land for peace formula and realizing the vision of a two-state solution.

Having failed to persuade the Israelis and the Palestinians to resume negotiations it would be understandable if the Obama administration simply tries to veto the resolution in an effort to curry favor with Israel's advocates in the US, especially the massive, Evangelical and Methodists constituency prior to the upcoming presidential election. This, however, would be a major mistake. Without successful diplomacy to find an alternative path forward, the US position will be considerably undermined in the Middle East, where the US must buttress its influence at this time of change and upheaval.

Only a different, nuanced and creative resolution that provides international support for the two-state solution and a workable framework to bring the parties back to negotiations could prevent both Israelis and Palestinians from racing towards a new quagmire with unpredictable consequences.

Do Jews, Christians and Muslims better understand each other since 9/11?

TEXAS FAITH: Do Jews, Christians and Muslims better understand each other since 9/11?

Abstract: Jews need sincerity and not duplicity. Native Americans need an apology and there is a good amount of phobia embedded in Hindus about conversions. We believe in Jesus as a Prophet and not as a son of God. Unless we deal with tough issues about our differences, we will continue to fake being nice to each other and brood with ill-will within. There is indeed improved understanding among faiths since 9/11. But there also is deepening suspicion among them. One is spiritually motivated and the other is political. Please note, most of my writings are inclusive of all theist and atheists traditions, we all inhabit the earth and we need to figure how best to co-exist cohesively.

# # #

Since September 11, 2001, many conversations have taken place among Muslims, Jews and Christians. There are official interfaith conversations occurring all over the globe, where participants dig into each other's texts. And numerous personal dialogues have been established over the last decade. Many of us have learned more about the three Abrahamic faiths since September 11, 2001 than perhaps we knew before that day.

But here's this week's question, which is simple in its wording but not necessarily simple to answer: Do followers of the three Abrahamic faiths really understand each other better since 9/11?

Eight Texas Faith Panelists including Mike Ghouse weighs in at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/09/texas-faith-do-jews-christians.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

There is indeed improved understanding among faiths since 9/11. But there also is deepening suspicion among them. One is spiritually motivated and the other is political.

We were better off when we knew very little about each other. But as we faced the hostage crisis in 1979, the evangelical foray into politics, the Baptist convention on harvesting poor souls and finally 9/11, religion moved on to center stage. It will get better when we know more about each other.

On September 11, 2001, I was on the radio in Dallas attempting to make sense out of the chaos of the day and pave the way for relevant actions. Interfaith-faith prayers, blood donation and fundraising for the men and women in uniform were all in place by evening. The fog was clearing up. Osama bin Laden was the bad guy and Muslim-Americans had nothing to do with his actions, nor did they authorize him to terrorize any one. Indeed, he placed a wedge between Americans that still needs to be undone.

Atheists, Baha'i, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Jews, Native Americans, Pagans, Sikhs, Wicca and Zoroastrians along with area city mayors, FBI, police and fire chiefs and community leaders graced the first interfaith event in Frisco. Out of which a new tradition evolved called Unity Day. It continues year after year.

But while we are trying to know more about each other, more needs to be done. Here are a few examples;

* Mosques in Dallas/ Fort Worth area opened their doors right after the 9/11 incident. As Christians walked in, they were naively welcomed by yet-to-be trained volunteers who said, "We believe in Jesus as a Prophet and not as a son of God." However, the volunteers were trained to welcome without conflict the very next week.

Of course, back in the 8th Century, a Syrian bishop had declared that Islam was a false religion. That declaration has remained in the psyche of a few Christians forever.

Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas reiterated the statement and added, "Quran is a false book written by a false prophet." He was asked to prove it but failed.

There are several verses in Quraan that are mistranslated for political gains. Steve Blow in Dallas Morning News quoted me, "In the Middle Ages, European leaders commissioned a hostile Quran translation to foster warfare against Muslim invaders. Later, Muslim leaders produced another translation to inflame Muslims against Christians and Jews."

One such difficult passage is "Kill the infidels wherever you find them." Ten such propaganda verses were read to separate the myths from reality. They were not read by Muslim clergy, but by Baptist, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian, Methodist, New Age, Unificationists, Sikhs, Hindu and others at the Quraan Conference

*Shamelessly, anti-Semitism continues to operate under the radar. The anti-circumcision bills in San Francisco and Santa Monica were irksome to some, but frightening to others. Indeed, there are still a few Christians out there who cannot shake off what Fred Phelps was demonstrating with reckless posters such as "Christ Killers."

The Judeo-Christian phrase was thrown around in the 40's to build relationships between Jews and Christians. A whole industry of opportunists was born from it. The support for Jews by Billy Graham, Richard Nixon, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Glenn Beck and other chest thumpers have ulterior motives. They want to cash in on the name of Israel and perhaps convert them. Jews need sincerity and not duplicity to feel genuinely secure.

*Native Americans need an apology for the destruction of their religion and there is a good amount of phobia embedded in Hindus about conversions. Some of them feel that Governors Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal made it in politics because they converted to Christianity.

*The spiritual balance in the community needs to be restored through observing and following the Golden Rule, which is treat others as you would like others to treat you. Although we have failed in the past, such as when the city of Plano rejected a permit to build a Hindu temple in the early 80's and Richardson did not permit a Muslim school to open there in the mid-1990s, we still have come a long way. Thank God, those are now history and the public in the metroplex welcomes diversity.

* Interfaith meetings are still social gatherings. Leaders from smaller groups are invited as tokens rather than to genuinely get to know each other. Unless we deal with tough issues about differences, we will continue to fake being nice to each other and brood with ill-will within. There is plenty of room for honesty to grow and mature.

If we can learn to respect the otherness of other people and accept the God-given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. One of these days we will get there. Meanwhile, I am pleased to invite you to the 7th Annual 9/11 Memorial, the Unity Day USA on Sunday September 11 at 5:00 PM at the Unity Church of Dallas on Forest Lane. Details are at www.UnitydayUSA.com

----

References:
Steve Blow – Dallas Morning News: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/steve-blow/20100919-In-defense-of-Islam-pursuing-9397.ece

----

List of difficult passages: http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/12/difficult-passages-in-quraan.html

----
Quraan Conference program sequence: http://quraanconference.blogspot.com/2010/12/quraan-conference-program-sequence.html

-----

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day to the media and the public. He is a speaker thinker and a writer on the topics of pluralism, cohesive societies, Politics, Islam, interfaith, India and Peace. Over a thousand articles have been published on the topics and two of his books are poised to be released on Pluralism and Islam. Mike's work is reflected in 4 website's and 27 Blogs indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and you can find all of his current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com